ISG to the Troops: You're just pawns .....

The thread title is pure hyperbole .... but am I wrong here .... ?

The ISG suggests we withdraw our combat troops and leave behind a cadre of 'trainers' who will help the Iraq army 'stand up'.

Help me out here. Wasn't the Iraq army we purposefully disbanded the largest and most well trained and equipped in the Middle East? While they might benefit from a few pointers from us, I should think the Iraqis know how to 'stand up' an army. They need us like a bull needs nipples.

The real issue is that the Iraqi citizenry is like a genie let out of its bottle .... or maybe Pandora let out of her box. There's no nationalism. There's only mostly factionalism. The 'Malaki Government' is hardly representative - and even less supported and seen as legitimate. The Iraq army will 'stand up' when they see something to to stand up *for*.

Meanwhile, when our combat troops leave and the trainers stay behid, each of the remaining 'trainers' will have a big, fat terget on their backs. The military equivalent of a 'Kick Me' sign.

I think this strategy represents a third option that is a non starter from the outset.

We really have only two choices:

Leave and let the Iraqis work it out on their own, by civil war if need be.

Stay and fight against a never ending procession of Whack-A-Mole enemies.

Both options suck.

I wish we were never there. I wish we could go with the Pottery Barn rule. I feel a sense of responsibility for the mess **we** created.

But we have no choice, really.

Our only option is get the fuck outta Dodge and do it yesterday. Or at least as fastr as we can safely withdraw, the consequences in the country be damned.

Then follow Murtha's notion of staying in the region and at the ready, but only to stave off World War III .... cuz THAT, I fear, is also an 'option' ....... one that NO one is yet talking about.

George Bush and his gaggle have created this mess.

Tell me again why we shouldn't impeach?

(edit for typos, not substance)

They simply made it easier for him to survive politically - doing the same thing.

I understand that you don't mean it. But I would prefer that we not have threads with titles like this on this website.

I understand the specific concern. Thanks for the nudge.

Thank You .

proud patriot Moderator
Democratic Underground

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I completely disagree. Perhaps the former Iraqi army was well trained; but it doesn't matter, because we got rid of them for their Baathist ties. So we're working with novices. And the trainers won't be subject to violence any more than soldiers will, probably less. Its the people on the frontlines that are being shot at. Its those defending the oil pipes, govt. buildings, and keeping peace on the street. The point of training is that Iraqis will be on the frontline. And while there is Muslim-Muslim violence, the motivation of terrorists to kill fellow Arabs is small compared to those hankering to take on the Great Satan. I think we have to train (which we have been doing w/only 3,000 soldiers- a true crime), and then get out.

Or did you miss that sleight of hand? We turned them loose, with their weapons, to shoot at us as "terrorists" so that we could keep the "civil war" going indefinitely while we steal their oll.

Now Baker wants to train Iraqis to be our personal Blackwaters so we can steal their oil without Pentagon backup. The idea is straight out of Raj imperialism and is utterly ludicrous as well as racist.

That doesn't make sense. The civil war is making it difficult on the oil trade; oil lines are being bombed, billions in oil are being looted, and exploration is made almost impossible despite Iraq's vast reserves.